linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: Use list_for_each_entry_reverse instead of list_for_each

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKohpo=w61naPGUHqMaF2zUWsSuV_9Rb0rhj2uf0TPbNRe_gRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:40:29 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@...sung.com>
Cc:	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / OPP: Use list_for_each_entry_reverse instead of list_for_each_entry

On 29 April 2014 11:20, Jonghwan Choi <jhbird.choi@...sung.com> wrote:
> -> You are right. But 5440 cpufreq driver write an index number instead of
> clk divider value
> for change DVFS. And our another(will submit) also write an index number for
> changing DVFS.
> As you said, order of table shouldn't matter at all in cpufreq layer. Then,
> could this can be applied?

These two patches aren't going to fly I believe. Depending on the order
of table for setting hardware is inviting trouble.

> In our case, We want to use index 0 for P0 and index 1 for P1.....

What I would recommend is, use .driver_data field to hold what has to
be written to hardware for any frequency. And then simply use
driver_data instead of index.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/